What about old-fashioned trade craft? What about using agents to infiltrate suspect organizations in order to obtain information? Informants? Exploiting individual weaknesses? What spies have been doing since the beginning of humanity?

Instead, we opt to invade the privacy of every human being on the planet in the name of keeping America safe?

Im more curious HOW they are using the drones. are they using the drones to follow specific people(with correctly provided warrants?) or are they just flying the drones overhead and seeing what they can find.

Is it just me or the heading sounds strange to me?"FBI head says it’s using surveillance drones in US skies “very seldom”"should read"FBI head says its use of surveillance drones in US skies is “very seldom”?

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

Because you do not have thousands of them in the skies, because they will not follow specific person, because they will not provide you city wide intel about every person in that city, because they are not automated.

We had a black helicopter (with a DHS tail number) over the NW side of Chicago for a large part of last year, but I haven't seen it for a few months now. I wonder if it's been replaced by a drone or three.

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

I think it may have something to do with the reduction in effort and cost needed to perform the surveillance.

My assumption is most of these drones are not Predator-style drones used in war zones but rather, smaller, shorter range affairs. The kind that you can hand-toss, or launch from the back of a truck.

So now, instead of the effort and cost needed to maintain a helicopter, trained pilots, spotters, etc., a dozen drones can be in the air, recording and sending footage back for later analysis. It's easier and cheaper to canvas larger swathes of the country side. The technical and economic barriers that keep mass surveillance in check are gone. Now we just have to believe that the government double-plus pinky swears to not abuse its power.

I don't want policy framework dictating how they use drones, I want LAWS on the books detailing how they can and can't use them. Policies can be changed without the public knowing. Though I suppose laws can be interpreted in secret too...

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

News organizations have much more transparency, and much more reason not to antagonize the citizenry. If XYZ news films you or your property and does something nefarious with it, they are not utterly untouchable. You could sue. Or give them bad publicity that they would rather avoid.

None of these constraints realistically apply to the NSA -- and the potential for abuse is so much higher. It is entirely reasonably to apply stricter constraints to their behavior, since natural restraints do not exist-- and we're footing the bill for it.

I don't want policy framework dictating how they use drones, I want LAWS on the books detailing how they can and can't use them. Policies can be changed without the public knowing. Though I suppose laws can be interpreted in secret too...

Remember last year when the LAPD told the ACLU they didn't need any laws or even official regulations about drone use or data retention because they had no intention of misusing them? So I guess all's good. It's not like they've ever abused their authority in the past.

“[Leaks such as these] educate the persons about our capabilities and [that] makes it that much harder to prevent the next terrorist attack,” Mueller said.

It always comes back to terrorism. Look, the concern about drones is very similar to the concerns about PRISM. It's surveillance being done on a massive scale in secret with no oversight. We're all caught in the dragnet and "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" isn't going to fly.

If I have nothing to hide, you have NO reason to watch me, listen to me, or capture my metadata. To do otherwise is to presume my guilt.

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

News organizations have much more transparency, and much more reason not to antagonize the citizenry. If XYZ news films you or your property and does something nefarious with it, they are not utterly untouchable. You could sue. Or give them bad publicity that they would rather avoid.

None of these constraints realistically apply to the NSA -- and the potential for abuse is so much higher. It is entirely reasonably to apply stricter constraints to their behavior, since natural restraints do not exist-- and we're footing the bill for it.

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

News organizations have much more transparency, and much more reason not to antagonize the citizenry. If XYZ news films you or your property and does something nefarious with it, they are not utterly untouchable. You could sue. Or give them bad publicity that they would rather avoid.

None of these constraints realistically apply to the NSA -- and the potential for abuse is so much higher. It is entirely reasonably to apply stricter constraints to their behavior, since natural restraints do not exist-- and we're footing the bill for it.

Tell that to the celebrities hounded by paparazzi.

The celeb and their media stalkers is a whole different ball of wax. You are comparing sweeping surveillence of every person in the country to some idiot breaking a dozen laws to get paid $100 for a photo of an out of focus nipple. The moron with the camera can be sued into non-existence - the media house that publishes said photos can be held liable. and or made an example of.

Lately if the Feds get cuaght - they go hide behind some Senator that writes up a Law that retro-actively immunizes the Agency (and those involved) in order to justify an overly used buzzword "terrorism". Not everything is terrorism. There is no oversight on either the Agencies committing the acts OR Congress for illegally safeguarding them after the fact.

The sad part is that most Americans just don't give a shit. They are far more interested in what the Kardashian baby will be named. Just say "terrorist" and they will happily let a federal agent camp out in their living room and follow them around 24/7. Well, they might demand a little flag lapel pin or something in return. And more coverage of Kardashian please!

I don't know which is more depressing, the government doing all this stuff or the generally ambivalent reaction by America.

If all the headlines from the last week with "NSA" or "FBI" in them, were changed to "KGB, or Stasi", they would have made perfect sense to Americans in 1985.

This. Having graduated high-school right about that time, I can tell you that I'm boggled that we're talking about America this way. We used to feel pity for the citizens of the Soviet Union, having to endure being watched all the time. Now the NSA, CIA, and FBI watch Americans with an extent of coverage and retrievable detail that would've been the KGB's wet dream.

All in the name of "We're keeping you safe/Terrorism/Think of the Children!"

All of these stories should be an opportunity for me to espouse my usual bullshit about how all politicians are the same and you can't trust the government and a bunch of other principles I've maintained that people always argue about because for some reasons humans love authority... but I can't. This just makes me too sad.

I don't have a problem with drones being used in certain cases, such as a hostage situation where getting people close could be hazardous. However, there needs to be a lot of oversight, which doesn't seem to be happening.

Is it just me or the heading sounds strange to me?"FBI head says it’s using surveillance drones in US skies “very seldom”"should read"FBI head says its use of surveillance drones in US skies is “very seldom”?

Oh, ok, keep doing it then. Not like you're going to escalate what you're doing, right? Jesus christ, I can barely concetrate over all the drone buzz happening outside my office window right now. Where was I?

I very much doubt the FBI drones flying over USA territory are attached to any powerful weapons systems. However, local police officers in their camera-equiped helicopters can and often do carry weapons. It is also possible for the civilian pilots in newscaster helicopters to carry weapons.

What about old-fashioned trade craft? What about using agents to infiltrate suspect organizations in order to obtain information? Informants? Exploiting individual weaknesses? What spies have been doing since the beginning of humanity?

Instead, we opt to invade the privacy of every human being on the planet in the name of keeping America safe?

Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. Key word about old fashioned...its old. When you have modern tech, a plan can be carried out and launched in a matter of months. Setting up those agents to "infiltrate suspect organizations". Doesn't happen overnight. We aren't talking Alias here. And frankly I'd lay good money on the most of terrorist communications is done via the web now a days instead of good old face to face conversations. There has been nothing like the internet since the beginning of humanity. We've gone from everything else that requires physical transport of an object that could take hours or days, or months. To instant transport within seconds. The concept of intercepting someone who is carrying communications has given way to an encrypted e-mail mixed in with millions of other e-mails. This is where the government is pulling their hair out. How do you adapt to current tech while still providing the idea of privacy?

We've all been screaming that the NSA/FBI/CIA/ETC shouldn't do this. Well we haven't actually been suggesting how they are suppost to combat at enemy that is using the internet? Personally Old school is still valid, but as a tool in a toolkit of options. I said it before there is no silver bullet to terrorism. Stop killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan that generates new terrorists is one thing. I twitch every time I see reports of civilians killed. Other then the fact that there is no excuse for doing so...when you kill a kids parents. In what world do people live in where they think that child won't grow up despising everything we are and represent?

What about old-fashioned trade craft? What about using agents to infiltrate suspect organizations in order to obtain information? Informants? Exploiting individual weaknesses? What spies have been doing since the beginning of humanity?

Instead, we opt to invade the privacy of every human being on the planet in the name of keeping America safe?

Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. Key word about old fashioned...its old. When you have modern tech, a plan can be carried out and launched in a matter of months. Setting up those agents to "infiltrate suspect organizations". Doesn't happen overnight. We aren't talking Alias here. And frankly I'd lay good money on the most of terrorist communications is done via the web now a days instead of good old face to face conversations. There has been nothing like the internet since the beginning of humanity. We've gone from everything else that requires physical transport of an object that could take hours or days, or months. To instant transport within seconds. The concept of intercepting someone who is carrying communications has given way to an encrypted e-mail mixed in with millions of other e-mails. This is where the government is pulling their hair out. How do you adapt to current tech while still providing the idea of privacy?

We've all been screaming that the NSA/FBI/CIA/ETC shouldn't do this. Well we haven't actually been suggesting how they are suppost to combat at enemy that is using the internet? Personally Old school is still valid, but as a tool in a toolkit of options. I said it before there is no silver bullet to terrorism. Stop killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan that generates new terrorists is one thing. I twitch every time I see reports of civilians killed. Other then the fact that there is no excuse for doing so...when you kill a kids parents. In what world do people live in where they think that child won't grow up despising everything we are and represent?

There are intelligence organizations in other countries that use "old-fashioned" alternatives for obtaining information. We in this country place very little value on humint. Other countries do things differently. If the equation is to abandon the old-school methodology, invade everyone's privacy, ignore the constitution, all in the name of fighting the "enemy", I say that's unacceptable.

But perhaps what you're getting at is that the whole argument needs to be reframed, and I agree with you there. I'm not sure who or what the enemy is anymore. I'm not sure that it isn't us. I'm not sure that we can continue to do what we do all over the world without perpetuating the "enemy", whatever it is.

At some point we need to really do some introspection here, as a people, and decide all over again what it is we stand for, what it is that we want for ourselves and from other people. That reframes the question.

I don't see how these drones are any worse than the powerful zoom video cameras that have been in use by newscaster and local police helicopters for many years.

News organizations have much more transparency, and much more reason not to antagonize the citizenry. If XYZ news films you or your property and does something nefarious with it, they are not utterly untouchable. You could sue. Or give them bad publicity that they would rather avoid.

None of these constraints realistically apply to the NSA -- and the potential for abuse is so much higher. It is entirely reasonably to apply stricter constraints to their behavior, since natural restraints do not exist-- and we're footing the bill for it.

NSA only does communications. They would have no use for drones doing photography, communications intercepts yes.

If I have nothing to hide, you have NO reason to watch me, listen to me, or capture my metadata. To do otherwise is to presume my guilt.

There are plenty of good reasons to watch you, listen to you, and capture your metadata that have nothing to do with presumption of guilt. Unless you live totally alone and disconnected in the middle of the desert, someone is almost always able to look at you, listen to what you say, and especially capture your metadata. The phone companies have records of all the calls you have made, the internet providers have records of all the websites you have visited, Facebook knows who all your friends are, Google has records of all your searches, retailers and credit card companies have records of all your purchases, the porn websites know what your sexual fetishes are, etc etc etc. It is just that you seem to trust total strangers and greedy megacorporations a lot more than you trust your democratically elected government. Maybe the government just needs better marketing.

If I have nothing to hide, you have NO reason to watch me, listen to me, or capture my metadata. To do otherwise is to presume my guilt.

There are plenty of good reasons to watch you, listen to you, and capture your metadata that have nothing to do with presumption of guilt. Unless you live totally alone and disconnected in the middle of the desert, someone is almost always able to look at you, listen to what you say, and especially capture your metadata. The phone companies have records of all the calls you have made, the internet providers have records of all the websites you have visited, Facebook knows who all your friends are, Google has records of all your searches, retailers and credit card companies have records of all your purchases, the porn websites know what your sexual fetishes are, etc etc etc. It is just that you seem to trust total strangers and greedy megacorporations a lot more than you trust your democratically elected government. Maybe the government just needs better marketing.

The "greedy megacorporations" don't exercise their authority by marshaling the most impressive organization of violence the world has ever seen. They just try to sell me something, which I don't have to buy. The government uses force to ensure it gets its way. If you can't see that basic difference, your love of authority has blinded you.